Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Not all bad news is harmful to a good reputation: evidence from the most visible companies in the US

  • Published:
Journal of Management and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the relation between the disclosure of corporate social responsibility (CSR) bad news and reputation. In particular, our analysis focuses on the moderating effect that such disclosure may have on corporate reputation. A large and growing number of studies in the CSR accounting literature provides empirical evidence supporting the argument that CSR disclosure – which has been criticized for its self-laudatory style – may serve as a reputation management tool used to camouflage a company’s image among stakeholders, hence protect its reputation. These studies suggest that an optimistically biased reporting may enhance reputation. However, recent research in the financial accounting area shows that a non-or less-optimistically biased reporting may actually have positive effects on the credibility of the information disclosed. Therefore, the paper argues that the disclosure of CSR-related bad news could be beneficial and turn into better reputation. Based on data from a sample of the most visible companies in the US, this study shows that the disclosure of bad CSR news may have positive reputational outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Business Roundtable is an association of CEOs of major US companies. These CEOs lead companies with nearly 15 million employees and more than $7 trillion in annual revenues (https://www.businessroundtable.org/about-us). Business Roundtable member companies comprise nearly one-fifth of the total market capitalization. Established in 1972, Business Roundtable applies the expertise and experience of its CEO members to the major issues facing the nation.

  2. In the same line of reasoning, the crisis communication literature shows that early and transparent communication of negative incidents (a form of bad news) can help minimize losses of credibility (e.g., Ulmer and Sellnow, 2000, as quoted by Hahn and Lulfs, 2014, p. 405).

  3. Cho et al., (2012) examined whether differences in environmental performance and environmental disclosure are associated with environmental reputation. Disclosure is measured in terms of extent and content, not type of information (bad or good news).

  4. European Directive 2014/95/UE requires that, starting in fiscal year 2018, large companies publish reports on the policies they implement in relation to environmental protection, social responsibility and treatment of employees, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery, diversity on company boards (in terms of age, gender, and educational and professional background). More recently, in April 2021, the European Commission adopted another important initiative, which is the proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. This regulation would amend the previous reporting requirements and extend to all large companies and to all companies listed on regulated markets more detailed reporting requirements according to mandatory EU sustainability reporting standards.

  5. For a discussion of the distinction between legitimacy and reputation see Deephouse & Carter (2005, p. 331), who suggest “two important criteria for distinguishing legitimacy and reputation: the nature of the assessment stated in the definition and the dimensions on which legitimacy and reputation can be assessed.” According to the first criterion—the nature of the assessment—legitimacy is centered on meeting and adhering to the expectations of a social system’s norms, values, rules, and meanings (Hirsch & Andrews, 1984; Parsons, 1960) […] but central to reputation is a comparison of organizations to determine their relative standing. For any two organizations, they will either have the same reputation or, more likely, one will have a better reputation than the other.” With regard to the second criterion, legitimacy assessments are usually “restricted to those involving regulative, normative or cognitive dimensions. In contrast, reputation may be assessed on these dimensions but can also be assessed on ‘virtually any attribute along which organizations may vary that can serve as a source of status comparisons’.” (pp. 331–332).

  6. We do not use the term “greenwashing” exensively and explicitly throughout the paper as it constitutes another word to call what we describe above – that is, there is a disconnect between what companies say (disclose; words) and what they do (perform; actions), and/or companies claim that they are undertaking pro-environmental initiatives—but they really are not. In other words, “greenwashing” falls under the umbrella of (legitimacy and) impression management, which we discuss here.

  7. Our measure here focuses on the information disclosed in tables and graphs and is not affected by how the information is presented (e.g., larger or smaller tables to deliver the same information). This is one of the strengths related to considering the information delivered in tables and graphs vs. the amount of space that they occupy (which changes according to the formatting style of the specific report).

References

  • Adams, C. A., & Evans, R. (2004). Accountability, completeness, credibility and the audit expectations gap. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 14, 97–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2009). Corporate sustainability reporting: A study in disingenuity? Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 279

    Google Scholar 

  • Axjonow, A., Ernstberger, J., & Pott, C. (2018). The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure on corporate reputation: A non-professional stakeholder perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(2), 429–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Baucus, M. S. (1995). Commentary: Halo-adjusted residuals-Prolonging the life of a terminally ill measure of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 34(2), 227–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., & Moneva, J. M. (2008). Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(3), 337–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. C., Campbell, D., & Shrives, P. J. (2010). Content analysis in environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British–German context. The British Accounting Review, 42(3), 207–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Beretta, S., & Bozzolan, S. (2004). A framework for the analysis of firm risk communication. The International Journal of Accounting, 39(3), 265–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A + GRI reports. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(7), 1036–1071

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Pavelin, S. (2008). Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 120–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, N. M., Guillamon-Saorin, E., & Pierce, A. (2009). Methodological Insights: Impression management: Developing and illustrating a scheme of analysis for narrative disclosures – a methodological note. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(5), 789–832

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. L., Guidry, R. P., & Patten, D. M. (2010). Sustainability reporting and perceptions of corporate reputation: An analysis using Fortune most admired scores. Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, 4, 83–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouten, L., Everaert, P., Van Liedekerke, L., De Moor, L., & Christiaens, J. (2011). Corporate social responsibility reporting: A comprehensive picture? Accounting Forum, 35(3),187–204

  • Buchholz, F., Jaeschke, R., Lopatta, K., & Maas, K. (2018). The use of optimistic tone by narcissistic CEOs. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31(2), 531–562

    Google Scholar 

  • Business Roundtable (2016). Principles of Corporate Governance. Washington DC

  • Cairney, T. D., & Richardson, F. M. (1998). The credibility of management forecasts of annual earnings.Available at SSRN77508

  • Castello, I., & Lozano, J. M. (2011). Searching for new forms of legitimacy through corporate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 11–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C. C. C., & Milne, M. J. (1999). Investor reactions to corporate environmental saints and sinners: An experimental analysis. Accounting and Business Research, 29(4), 265–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Chelli, M., Durocher, S., & Fortin, A. (2019). Substantive and symbolic strategies sustaining the environmentally friendly ideology: A media-sensitive analysis of the discourse of a leading French utility. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(4), 1013–1042

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H. (2009). Legitimation strategies used in response to environmental disaster: A French case study of total SA’s Erika and AZF incidents. European Accounting Review, 18(1), 33–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W., & Patten, D. M. (2010). The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Accounting Organizations and Society, 35(4), 431–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Guidry, R. P., Hageman, A. M., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation. Accounting Organizations and Society, 37(1), 14–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 639–647

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano, M. A., Kahl, S. J., & Suarez, F. F. (2015). Services, industry evolution, and the competitive strategies of product firms. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4), 559–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormier, D., & Magnan, M. (2003). Environmental reporting management: A continental European perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22(2), 43–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Improving firm environmental performance and reputation: The role of employee green teams. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 735–749

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C., & Gordon, B. (1996). A study of the environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations. Accounting and Business Research, 26(3), 187–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 1024–1039

    Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Maggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Du, X. (2015). How the market values greenwashing? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 547–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., van Staden, C. J., & Richards, G. (2019). Watch that tone: An investigation of the use and stylistic consequences of tone in corporate accountability disclosures. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(1), 77–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., Gardberg, N., & Sever, J. (2000). The Reputation QuotientSM: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 7, 241–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & van Riel, C. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(2), 5–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, M., & Patten, D. M. (2004). Evidence on the pernicious effect of financial report environmental disclosure. Accounting Forum, 28(1), 27–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryxell, G. E., & Wang, J. (1994). The Fortune corporate ‘reputation’ index: Reputation for what? Journal of Management, 20(1), 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardberg, N. A., & Schepers, D. H. (2008). Do stakeholders detect corporate social performance signals? In Academy of Management Proceedings, 2008(1), 1–6. Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management

  • Guthrie, J., & Parker, L. D. (1989). Corporate social reporting: A rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and Business Research, 19(76), 343–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackston, D., & Milne, M. J. (1996). Some determinants of social and environmental disclosures in New Zealand companies. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(1), 77–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddock-Fraser, J. E., & Tourelle, M. (2010). Corporate motivations for environmental sustainable development: Exploring the role of consumers in stakeholder engagement. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(8), 527–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., & Lülfs, R. (2014). Legitimizing negative aspects in gri-oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(3), 401–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassell, J. M., Jennings, R. H., & Lasser, D. J. (1988). Management earnings forecasts: Their usefulness as a source of firm-specific information to security analysts. Journal of Financial Research, 11(4), 303–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasseldine, J., Salama, A. I., & Toms, J. S. (2005). Quantity versus quality: The impact of environmental disclosures on the reputations of UK Plcs. British Accounting Review, 32(2), 231–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, C., & Walker, R. (2012). Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum, 36(3), 194–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiemstra, C., & Jones, J. D. (1994). Testing for linear and nonlinear Granger causality in the stock price-volume relation. Journal of Finance, 49(5), 1639–1664

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, P. M., & Andrews, J. (1984). Administrators’ response to performance and value challenges – or, stance, symbols and behavior in a world of changing frames. In T. Sergiovanni, & J. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and Organizational Culture: New Perspectives on Administrative Theory and Practice (pp. 170–185). University of Illinois Press

  • Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management – New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 55–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Holder-Webb, L., Cohen, J. R., Nath, L., & Wood, D. (2009). The supply of corporate social responsibility disclosures among US firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4), 497–527

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, A. G. (2009). Accounting and the environment. Accounting Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 433–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, A. P., Miller, G. S., & Skinner, D. J. (2003). The role of supplementary statements with management earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting Research, 41(5), 867–890

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, R. (1987). Unsystematic security price movements, management earnings forecasts, and revisions in consensus analyst earnings forecasts.Journal of Accounting Research,90–110

  • Jupe, R. (2007). An analysis of disclosures in corporate environmental reports. Social and Environmental Accounting Journal, 27(2), 8–11

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG (2011). KPMG international survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2011. Retrieved February 2019, from https://www.kpmg.de/docs/survey-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2011.pdf

  • KPMG (2013). KPMG survey of corporate sustainability reporting 2013. Retrieved February 2019, from https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/08/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2013.pdf

  • KPMG (2018). ESG: A view from the top. Retrieved February 2019, from https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/cn/pdf/en/2018/09/esg-a-view-from-the-top.pdf

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Z., & Haque, S. (2019). Corporate social responsibility employment narratives: A linguistic analysis. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(6), 1690–1713

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. (1994). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. Paper presented at the Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York

  • Little, P. L., & Little, B. L. (2000). Do perceptions of corporate social responsibility contribute to explaining differences in corporate price-earnings ratios? A research note. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(2), 137–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Lys, T., Naughton, J. P., & Wang, C. (2015). Signaling through corporate accountability reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(1), 56–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., Toffel, M. W., & Zhou, Y. (2016). Scrutiny, norms, and selective disclosure: A global study of greenwashing. Organization Science, 27(2), 483–504

    Google Scholar 

  • McNichols, M. (1989). Evidence of informational asymmetries from management earnings forecasts and stock returns.Accounting Review,1–27

  • Mehran, H., & Peristiani, S. (2010). Financial visibility and the decision to go private. The Review of Financial Studies, 23(2), 519–547

    Google Scholar 

  • Melo, T., & Garrido-Morgado, A. (2012). Corporate reputation: A combination of social responsibility and industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(1), 11–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, M. (2004). How do investors assess the credibility of management disclosures? Accounting Horizons, 18(3), 185–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkl-Davies, D. M., & Brennan, N. M. (2007). Discretionary disclosure strategies in corporate narratives: Incremental information or impression management? Journal of Accounting Literature, 26, 116–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G. (2011). Sustainability disclosure and reputation: A comparative study. Corporate Reputation Review, 14(2), 79–96

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, S., & Ringham, K. (2019). The boundary of sustainability reporting: Evidence from the FTSE100. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(2), 357–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., & Adler, R. W. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 12(2), 237–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 13–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Neu, D., Warsame, H., & Pedwell, K. (1998). Managing public impressions: Environmental disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 265–282

  • Nwagbara, U., & Belal, A. (2019). Persuasive language of responsible organisation? A critical discourse analysis of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports of Nigerian oil companies. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(8), 2395–2420

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., & Hession, E. (2005). User needs in sustainability reporting: Perspectives of stakeholders in Ireland. European Accounting Review, 14(4), 759–787

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. M. (2002). Media exposure, public policy pressure, and environmental disclosure: An examination of the impact of TRI data availability. Accounting Forum, 26(2), 152–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D. M., & Zhao, N. (2014). Standalone CSR reporting by US retail companies. Accounting Forum, 38(2), 132–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez, A., García de los Salmones, M. del M., & López, C. (2015). Corporate reputation in the spanish context: An interaction between reporting to stakeholders and industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 733–746

  • Philippe, D., & Durand, R. (2011). The impact of norm-conforming behaviors on firm reputation. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 969–993

    Google Scholar 

  • Purushothaman, M., Tower, G., Hancock, R., & Taplin, R. (2000). Determinants of corporate social reporting practices of listed Singapore companies. Pacific Accounting Review, 12(2), 101–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimsbach, D., & Hahn, R. (2015). The effects of negative incidents in sustainability reporting on investors’ judgments-an experimental study of third-party versus self-disclosure in the realm of sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(4), 217–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1077–1093

    Google Scholar 

  • Seele, P., & Gatti, L. (2017). Greenwashing revisited: In search of a typology and accusation-based definition incorporating legitimacy strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(2), 239–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, D. J. (1994). Why firms voluntarily disclose bad news. Journal of Accounting Research, 32(1), 38–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanwick, P. A., & Stanwick, S. D. (2001). CEO compensation: Does it pay to be green?”. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(3), 176–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, A. K. L., Lai, K. H., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2012). Environmental governance of enterprises and their economic upshot through corporate reputation and customer satisfaction. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(6), 401–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Toms, J. S. (2002). Firm resources, quality signals and the determinants of corporate environmental reputation: Some UK evidence. British Accounting Review, 34(3), 257–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, J. W. U. (2010). Is silence golden? Earnings warnings and subsequent changes in analyst following. Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance, 25(3), 431–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, J. W. (2007). Is openness penalized? Stock returns around earnings warnings. The Accounting Review, 82(4), 1055–1087

    Google Scholar 

  • Viceira, L., Nolan, P., Rogers, T., & Runco, A. (2018). Could the big technology companies of today be the financial advisers of tomorrow? MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(2), 116–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Zou, H. L., Zeng, R. C., Zeng, S. X., & Shi, J. J. (2015). How do environmental violation events harm corporate reputation? Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 836–854

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. A. (1996). The relation between a prior earnings forecast by management and analyst response to a current management forecast.Accounting Review,103–115

  • Wiseman, J. (1982). An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7(1), 53–63

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Den Patten and the participants of the the 5th French Congress on Social and Environmental Accounting Research for their valuable comments and feedback. Charles Cho acknowledges the financial support provided by the Erivan K. Haub Chair in Business & Sustainability at the Schulich School of Business.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schulich School of Business, York University, Ontario, Canada

    Charles H. Cho

  2. Department of Economics and Management, University of Padova, Padua, Italy

    Michele Fabrizi

  3. Department of Management, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

    Silvia Pilonato

  4. Department of Business, Law and Consumer Behaviour, IULM University, Milan, Italy

    Federica Ricceri

Authors
  1. Charles H. Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michele Fabrizi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Silvia Pilonato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Federica Ricceri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles H. Cho.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

List of firms

Table 11
Full size table

Appendix B

The five disclosure categories and related themes

Table 12
Full size table

Appendix C

Examples of coding

Table 13
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cho, C.H., Fabrizi, M., Pilonato, S. et al. Not all bad news is harmful to a good reputation: evidence from the most visible companies in the US. J Manag Gov 28, 9–36 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-022-09645-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-022-09645-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation